I like con movies. If I have to point out why, it might be that it is a crime devoid of violence, a thinking man's game. And if you have to be a criminal, why not put som effort into it?

David Mamet's theatrical version of con men, finds a workoholic therapist who gets lulled into deceipt by the kindness of her heart, and in part her naive world view stemming from being kooked up in her office all day long.
I'm actually a fan of Mamet's, even though the stilted dialogue is a bit hit and miss. In this case mostly miss. The biggest downside, though, is the way the actors go into "con mode" by shifting their pronounciation…

House Of Games is classic twist riddled David Mamet territory and an excellent crime mystery to boot.

I'm a big Mamet fan and this film, about a psychologist who falls in with a group of con artists when researching the case history of a patient, is certainly one of his very best. But I think I recently came to the realisation that I could well have liked this and a couple of his other films a lot more.

The reason? Joe Mantegna's acting. I don't know if it's actually because he's not very good or his manner or delivery or just me missing something, but he just doesn't come off quite right as far as I'm concerned. His performance here,…

House of Games is a real slow burner. It takes it's time to develop characters, before with a swish of the hand, it dismisses them into darker territory than we could have ever imagined. Mamet's dialogue is a beauty to listen to, and although I have only seen Glengarry Glen Ross in relation to Mamet, I can definitely see myself checking out more of his filmography. Both Games and Ross rely on a trick in the third act that catches he viewer off guard, and giving us a sense of delicious pleasure. In this film, you can kind of see it coming, but when it does come, it comes suddenly leaving you first with a sense with dread, and then…

House of Games has a plot that is full of twists and turns, but honestly the big con is easy to spot and see coming as long as you are paying attention. Frankly, there is nothing else to do other than try to figure out the con since David Mamet gives nothing else to chew on. All of the characters are boring and shallow with the topper being the main character played by Lindsay Crouse. Gullible and dumb she exists solely as a mark. The film seems to be trying to sell her as having some sort of existential crisis, but boring conversations about finding pleasure and long scenes with blank expressions don't introduce those ideas. It doesn't help that…

Not sure what the con is here? Was I conned that the whole thing is so obvious and that I was waiting for Mamet to outsmart and he didn't? Or is the con just that this is a stupid movie?

All the setup is great. But everything else is so obvious that I was let down that Mamet mucked up the ending. Two major plot points make the ending of this movie retarded. It could've been great and outsmarted me somehow or it even could've gone the route of revenge and been just a slightly better than average thriller. Or a movie about teaching someone the art of the con. Instead, it just gets stupid. Very very stupid.

Maybe audiences…

I like con movies. If I have to point out why, it might be that it is a crime devoid of violence, a thinking man's game. And if you have to be a criminal, why not put som effort into it?

David Mamet's theatrical version of con men, finds a workoholic therapist who gets lulled into deceipt by the kindness of her heart, and in part her naive world view stemming from being kooked up in her office all day long.
I'm actually a fan of Mamet's, even though the stilted dialogue is a bit hit and miss. In this case mostly miss. The biggest downside, though, is the way the actors go into "con mode" by shifting their pronounciation…

House of Games is a real slow burner. It takes it's time to develop characters, before with a swish of the hand, it dismisses them into darker territory than we could have ever imagined. Mamet's dialogue is a beauty to listen to, and although I have only seen Glengarry Glen Ross in relation to Mamet, I can definitely see myself checking out more of his filmography. Both Games and Ross rely on a trick in the third act that catches he viewer off guard, and giving us a sense of delicious pleasure. In this film, you can kind of see it coming, but when it does come, it comes suddenly leaving you first with a sense with dread, and then…

Not sure what the con is here? Was I conned that the whole thing is so obvious and that I was waiting for Mamet to outsmart and he didn't? Or is the con just that this is a stupid movie?

All the setup is great. But everything else is so obvious that I was let down that Mamet mucked up the ending. Two major plot points make the ending of this movie retarded. It could've been great and outsmarted me somehow or it even could've gone the route of revenge and been just a slightly better than average thriller. Or a movie about teaching someone the art of the con. Instead, it just gets stupid. Very very stupid.

Maybe audiences…